# United Capitol Insurance Co. v. Hoodco, Inc.

> Missouri Court of Appeals · November 4, 2003 · 125 S.W.3d 859

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5104662

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED CAPITOL INSURANCE COMPANY v. HOODCO, INC., and Robert Cockerham, David Cooper and Brown & James, P.C.
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 4, 2003
- **Citations:** 125 S.W.3d 859; 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1764; 2003 WL 22479922
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Crahan, III, Shaw
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5104662

## Opinion text

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Hoodco, Inc. (hereinafter, “Hoodco”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment entered in favor of United Capitol Insurance Company (hereinafter, “United Capitol”) claiming United Capitol should not have sought further relief pursuant to Rule 87.10 because it had an adequate remedy at law; United Capitol was estopped from seeking further relief; and consideration of the issue was barred by res judicata. Further, Hoodco argues genuine issues of material fact existed as to its counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude entry of summary judgment. Rule 74.04(c)(3). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. However, we have provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5104662. Public record. Not legal advice.